Appeal No. 1997-3322
Application No. 08/353,940
units minus the linker.” Examiner’s Answer, page 5. It is the examiner’s position that it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have separately cloned the
single chain TCR V" and V$ genes according to the methods of Novotny 1991 for
purposes of co-expression of respective genes since it would be expected that the three-
dimensional dimer structure would more closely resemble a native conformation.
Examiner’s Answer, pages 5-6.
The appellant presents several arguments which remain unrebutted by the
examiner. First, the appellant argues that its vector claims require secretion of a single T-
cell receptor domain in a bacterial periplasm or a culture medium. Appellant submits that
Novotny 1991 tried and failed to produce secreted T-cell domains. Brief, page 11.
Novotny 1991 specifically states that “cell fractionation experiments failed to detect scTCR
in the periplasm.” Novotny page 8649, column 2.
Secondly, Novotny 1991 describes a gene encoding the “TCR protein, specific for
the hapten fluorescein in the context of major histocompatibility complex class II and
composed of one V" and V$ domain joined by a flexible [oligonucleotide] linker,
assembled in an Escherichia coli plasmid.” [Emphasis added.] Novotny 1991, Abstract.
In contrast, appellant’s claim a vector including, “(c) a DNA sequence encoding a
V" or V$ T-cell receptor variable domain”, i.e., the DNA sequence encodes either V" or
V$ T-cell receptor variable domain and not both as in Novotny 1991. The specification
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007